Comments on The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, reallyTypePad2016-08-03T14:39:51ZDMhttps://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/08/the-man-who-thought-tony-blair-was-his-guardian-angel-yes-really/comments/atom.xml/Mr Bunker commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb09292e94970d2016-08-11T09:43:00Z2016-08-11T10:06:02ZMr BunkerMichael - you have the cheek to tell me what I mean? You tell me I mean that I believe...<p>Michael - you have the cheek to tell me what I mean? </p>
<p>You tell me I mean that I believe God does not exist. Well, Michael, if you take the phrase &quot;I believe&quot; in this context to mean the same as &quot;I think&quot;, &quot;I assume&quot;, &quot;I opine&quot;, then I you&#39;re on the right track.</p>
<p>But if you are trying to equate its meaning with your religious faith (and instruct me that I, like you, have made a leap of faith, then you&#39;re wrong, I&#39;m afraid. </p>
<p>It&#39;s an old trick, Michael, but it doesn&#39;t deceive anyone intelligent enough to see through it. Sorry. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, not everyone is intelligent enough to see through this crafty shift in meaning of the word &quot;believe&quot;. That&#39;s why I say atheists should beware of using it in this context since it gives people - like you (?) - the opportunity to try to pull wool over the eyes of the unwary.</p>
<p>PS - I&#39;m sure you mean well, but I hope I&#39;ve opened your eyes to your mistake and that you won&#39;t make it again.<br />
</p>Michael commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb092919e8970d2016-08-11T02:25:54Z2016-08-11T07:27:46ZMichael'Yes, I think God does not exist' Mr Bunker - you mean you believe God does not exist! And on...<p>&#39;Yes, I think God does not exist&#39;</p>
<p>Mr Bunker - you mean you believe God does not exist! And on that bombshell.......</p>adeledicnander commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c8857d4a970b2016-08-10T11:07:25Z2016-08-10T11:07:25ZadeledicnanderThe OED: "belief - Trust or confidence (in); acceptance of any received theology; acceptance (of thing, fact, statement, etc) as...<p>The OED:</p>
<p>&quot;belief - Trust or confidence (in); acceptance of any received theology; acceptance (of thing, fact, statement, etc) as true or existing (belief in his honesty, that he is honest); beyond ~, incredible; to the best of my ~, in my genuine opinion; thing believed; religion; firm opinion (It is my belief that he did it).<br />
believe - &quot;1. Have faith in; 2. Put trust in truth of (statement), efficacy of (principle or system), advisability of (practice), existence of (thing); 3. Suppose, think (Mr Smith, I believe?); 4. Hence believer..; 5. Accept truth of (statement etc)..; 6. Accept veracity of (person); believe one&#39;s eyes and ears, etc, accept that what apparently sees or hears, etc is true; 7.Be of opinion that; suppose, think..&quot;.</p>Mr Bunker commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20f0246970c2016-08-09T21:58:43Z2016-08-10T10:43:16ZMr BunkerI hope this is clear enough: I'm an atheist because I have *no faith* in God, OK?. I have absolutely...<p>I hope this is clear enough:</p>
<p>I&#39;m an atheist because I have *no faith* in God, OK?. I have absolutely *no belief* in God. That&#39;s what makes me an atheist. And if you want my honest opinion: Yes, I think God does not exist. - Anyone object to that?</p>
<p>It would be strange if I thought otherwise as an atheist, wouldn&#39;t it? </p>
<p>The lesson to be learned from that is this: Atheists, beware of using the word &quot;believe&quot; in a discussion with nit-picking religious believers if all you mean is that is what you think. </p>
<p>Otherwise they&#39;ll seize upon it and accuse you of having a belief akin to their own religious belief, a belief which is irrational since it requires a &quot;leap of faith&quot;. - (Some have done so on this thread, I think!)</p>
<p>Rational atheists do not make leaps of faith. </p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c8853e0f970b2016-08-09T18:17:39Z2016-08-10T10:43:16ZIan Spriggsfrom Mr Hitchens: ‘dictionaries tend not to define phrases’ Point blank wrong. They do. They also define phrasal verbs. It...<p><br />
from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘dictionaries tend not to define phrases’</p>
<p>Point blank wrong. They do. They also define phrasal verbs. It has obviously been a long time since Mr Hitchens has had his nose in a dictionary.</p>
<p>further from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘the actual alleged difference is between the statement .&#39; I do not believe in God&#39;, and the statement &#39;I believe there is no God&#39;.’</p>
<p>No it is not. Not the debate between you and me, anyway. That is about your statement:</p>
<p>‘I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not believing in x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;.’</p>
<p>You said they are the same, they are not. They are different in the same vein as:</p>
<p>‘He *carried* his shopping home.’</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>‘He *carried on* talking.’</p>
<p>There is a difference in meaning between the phrasal verb and its root verb.</p>
<p>You talk about how frustrating you find it debating with bone-headed contributors, will you not at least acknowledge that there is a difference in meaning between the phrasal verb ‘to believe in’ and its root verb ‘to believe’?</p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20ee905970c2016-08-09T17:26:24Z2016-08-09T17:26:24ZIan Spriggsfrom Mr Hitchens: ‘I am sure this is terribly clever, but it is not very wise. Why help people who...<p>from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘I am sure this is terribly clever, but it is not very wise. Why help people who are evading responsibility for their chosen beliefs?’</p>
<p>Firstly, your question has already been answered by the postscript to my last comment, I have no interest in helping either side in the theist/atheist debate. </p>
<p>***PH notes: I don&#39;t care whether he has any interest in doing so. His intervention serves to do so whether he wishes it to happen or not.**** </p>
<p>Words either have the same meaning or they have a different meaning.</p>
<p>Secondly, I deliberately added that postscript because I suspected your enthusiasm to engage on one side of the theist/atheist debate was clouding your reason.</p>
<p>Thirdly, as must be becoming increasingly clear to all contributors following these exchanges, your responses are becoming ever more evasive.</p>
<p>Fourthly, and in light of my third point above, I shall present to you once more my unanswered question in a simplified format:</p>
<p>Can you see any difference between the following two statements? And if so can you explain that difference?</p>
<p>statement #1</p>
<p>I believe in X</p>
<p>statement #2</p>
<p>I believe X</p>
<p>If not, then here’s a little experiment for you. Get hold of your dictionary and look up ‘believe’ and ‘believe in’, and see if the definitions are the same or different.</p>
<p>***PH notes. Perhaps, though dictionaries tend not to define phrases. But the actual alleged difference is between the statement .&#39; I do not believe in God&#39;, and the statement &#39;I believe there is no God&#39;. There is no difference of any importance between these statements, and all the xs and ys in the universe cannot create one.****</p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c88528e4970b2016-08-09T14:58:19Z2016-08-09T17:17:41ZIan SpriggsMr Hitchens, Can you see any difference between the following two statements? And if so can you explain that difference?...<p>Mr Hitchens,</p>
<p>Can you see any difference between the following two statements? And if so can you explain that difference?</p>
<p>statement #1</p>
<p>‘I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not *believing in* x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;.’</p>
<p>statement #2</p>
<p>‘I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not *believing * x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;.’<br />
***PH writes. I am sure this is terribly clever, but it is not very wise. Why help people who are evading responsibility for their chosen beliefs? ***</p>
<p>P.S. I should emphasize that my interest in this matter is purely linguistic, I have no desire to either add or subtract from either side in the theist/atheist debate, as I *believe* [hold the opinion that] such a debate is pointless.</p>
<p><br />
</p>adeledicnander commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c88514b2970b2016-08-09T11:29:05Z2016-08-09T13:05:14Zadeledicnander"Atheism": "a-" means "not"; 'theism' being "belief in the existence of gods or a god, esp a God supernaturally revealed...<p>&quot;Atheism&quot;: &quot;a-&quot; means &quot;not&quot;; &#39;theism&#39; being &quot;belief in the existence of gods or a god, esp a God supernaturally revealed to man&quot; (- OED); i.e. &#39;not belief&#39; - belief in gods being discreet, material and separable from gods - atheism is delimited to not having such belief. <br />
</p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb09285c6c970d2016-08-09T10:05:04Z2016-08-09T10:27:51ZIan Spriggsprevious post: from Mr Hitchens: ‘I cannot see the distinction between 'not believing in x' and 'believing x does not...<p>previous post:</p>
<p><br />
from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not believing in x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;.’</p>
<p>Then I think he’s got his apples and oranges mixed up.</p>
<p>***PH notes: if it&#39;s so obvious, perhaps he can explain it?***</p>
<p>new post:</p>
<p><br />
I’ll give it a shot. Your confusion (and that of everyone else who has written upon the topic) is perfectly understandable. It lies in mixing up the meaning of the phrasal verb ‘to believe in’ with that of its root verb ‘to believe’. The confusion is compounded because you have used the gerund form of both phrasal verb and verb - ‘believing’. Hence everyone’s been getting themselves tied in knots over this - I’ll do my best to unravel it.</p>
<p> * * * </p>
<p>[There now follows a brief recap on grammatical definitions for those reading this comment who may have forgotten - apologies if this brings back memories of bad school days - I shall keep it as brief and painless as possible]</p>
<p>phrasal verbs consist of a verb + particle</p>
<p>e.g. carry on</p>
<p>the phrasal verb can have a very different meaning from its constituent parts</p>
<p>carry = take sth. in your hands/arms and move</p>
<p>on = one object which exists on top of another (plus many more meanings)</p>
<p>but ‘carry on’ = continue</p>
<p>nothing is ‘carried’ and nothing is ‘on’ anything else</p>
<p>the meaning of the phrasal verb is quite different from that of its root verb</p>
<p>[Ok, grammar lesson over -wasn’t too painful, was it?]</p>
<p> * * * </p>
<p>Returning to Mr Hitchens’ comment, here are dictionary definitions for both the phrasal verb and its root verb:</p>
<p>believe in = to hold as an object of faith</p>
<p>believe = to hold as an opinion</p>
<p>As can be seen, the meanings are quite different, and so being different they cannot be assigned the same value. (Mr Bunker approached the heart of the matter when he said: ‘I&#39;d prefer to say it is a mere opinion, not a faith’.)</p>
<p>As a quick check to demonstrate the difference, the phrasal verb ‘believe in’ cannot be followed by a ‘that clause’ whereas the verb ‘believe’ can.</p>
<p>so you cannot say: I don’t believe in *that* God exists.<br />
but you can say: I don’t believe *that* God exists.</p>
<p>So if the phrasal verb ‘believe in’ cannot be assigned the same value as the verb ‘believe’ (because their meanings are different), then in Mr Hitchens’ first statement &#39;not believing in x&#39; the words ‘not believing in’ can be assigned the value Y, where Y is the meaning of the phrasal verb ‘to believe in’. Whereas in his second statement &#39;believing x does not exist&#39; the word ‘believing’ can be assigned the value Z, where Z is the meaning of the verb ‘to believe’.</p>
<p>In its essential form Mr Hitchens has made the statement ‘I cannot see the difference between Y + X and Z + X’.</p>
<p>Or in the common tongue: he’s got his apples and oranges mixed up.</p>
<p><br />
[500 words]</p>
<p>***PH writes: nope, I still cannot see the difference beween the two statements. It cannot be clearly described because it does not exist.***<br />
</p>Michael commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c8850f21970b2016-08-09T09:49:04Z2016-08-09T10:27:51ZMichaelAt the risk of derailing this thread, I have to ask - Mr Hitchens IS there an alarm clock on...<p>At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to ask - Mr Hitchens IS there an alarm clock on your desk?</p>
<p>The suspense is killing me....</p>
<p>***PH writes : No.****</p>Michael commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c8850e93970b2016-08-09T09:39:28Z2016-08-09T10:27:51ZMichael"To have this discussion, "belief" needs to be defined, and that definition needs to stay in one place, so we...<p>&quot;To have this discussion, &quot;belief&quot; needs to be defined, and that definition needs to stay in one place, so we all know what we&#39;re talking about.&quot;</p>
<p>All I can see is a cavalcade of individuals so convinced of the superiority of their position that they will engage in all means of verbal &quot;sleight of hand&quot; to distract and deflect. If you do not believe in God, or the possibility of a creator that is fabulous. It makes little difference to anyone else anyway.</p>
<p>But to continually assert that believing that something does not exist is not a belief just insults everybody&#39;s intelligence, as does the continual use of the usual well-worn feeble verbal stratagems when espousing an atheistic viewpoint even when it becomes difficult, if not impossible to do so.</p>
<p>Plurality of opinion is great, but not when one side continually speaks out of both sides of its mouth when sharing said opinions.</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb09285992970d2016-08-09T09:00:03Z2016-08-09T10:27:51ZJohn AspinallMr Hitchens says: 'PH notes: Demonstrably untrue. By stating that he has no such idea, he has brought the belief...<p>Mr Hitchens says:</p>
<p>&#39;PH notes: Demonstrably untrue. By stating that he has no such idea, he has brought the belief into his thoughts for consideration.&#39;</p>
<p>Right, so *now* belief means something like &quot;an idea the mind considers&quot;?</p>
<p>I thought belief, in this context, meant something like the assertion that something was or was not the case, or existed, or whatever?</p>
<p>Of course a man &quot;has the belief&quot; that God exists, and he also &quot;has the belief&quot; God does not. These are beliefs a man must &quot;have&quot; to be able to think about them, but surely the point, here, is what a man asserts is the case? Isn&#39;t that what he &quot;believes&quot; the thing he asserts is the case?</p>
<p>To have this discussion, &quot;belief&quot; needs to be defined, and that definition needs to stay in one place, so we all know what we&#39;re talking about. <br />
</p>Michael commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20ebbab970c2016-08-09T08:16:45Z2016-08-09T08:52:57ZMichael"The deist believes actively in the existence of imagined supernatural persons" Again, you give away your bias. You can prove...<p>&quot;The deist believes actively in the existence of imagined supernatural persons&quot;</p>
<p>Again, you give away your bias. You can prove it is a belief in an &quot;imagined supernatural person?&quot; Thought not.</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c8850774970b2016-08-09T06:49:22Z2016-08-09T08:52:57ZJohn AspinallMr Hitchens says there's a dodge going on. I don't think there is, and I don't think he's correct to...<p>Mr Hitchens says there&#39;s a dodge going on. I don&#39;t think there is, and I don&#39;t think he&#39;s correct to say the two positions are different ways of saying the same thing.</p>
<p>It seems clear that *not accepting as true* an idea is different from claiming the idea is false.</p>
<p>I have inside my head no belief that Man Utd *will* win the league.***PH notes: Demonstrably untrue. By statung that he has no sych idea, he has brought the belief into his thiughts for consideration. The fact that he has done so to reject it does not alter this fact. This is so obvious and self-evident that I should have thought that even the most bumptious atheist could see it. It us why I so often point out that only animals and inanimate objects &#39;lack belief&#39; .**There is an absence of this belief. The belief they *will* win the league will not be found inside my head, by anyone, ever, but I do not positively assert (because of this absence) that Utd will *not* win. </p>
<p>Mr Hitchens doesn&#39;t care about sport. I&#39;d wager *his* head doesn&#39;t hold the belief that Utd will win the league. But would he say he *believes* they will *not* win?</p>
<p>I don&#39;t agree that we&#39;re talking about two ways to same the same thing.</p>
<p>How can taking a forward step (with either left or right foot) be the same as standing still?</p>
<p><br />
</p>Mr Bunker commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c884da5d970b2016-08-08T20:00:55Z2016-08-08T20:00:55ZMr BunkerBefore I react to Mr Hitchens' kind intervention, let me make it quite clear what an atheist is: And atheist...<p>Before I react to Mr Hitchens&#39; kind intervention, let me make it quite clear what an atheist is: And atheist is &quot;a person with no invisible means of support&quot;!</p>
<p>Now to Mr Hitchens&#39; criticism of my claim that &quot;not believing in God is no more a belief than not playing tennis is a sport&quot;. Mr Hitchens says, quite rightly that belief &quot;can be passive or active, negative or positive, and remain belief.&quot; That is true. And I&#39;d say that sport too can be passive or active, negative or positive and remain sport.&quot; </p>
<p>PH writes: No it cannot. This is simply untrue. ****</p>
<p>So that is irrelevant and we can safely ignore it. </p>
<p>Mr Hitchens is unable to refute the logic of my claim - it is indeed impossible to do so. Instead he raises a totally different question - explaining that he sees no &quot;distinction between &#39;not believing in x&#39; (passive) and actively &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;. But there is a difference:</p>
<p>For example: I don&#39;t *believe* (i.e. I have no belief) that there is an alarm clock on Mr Hitchens&#39; desk.<br />
****PH: if this fatuous claim had ever been true, it ceased to be so the moment it was formulated, when Mr Bunker began to consider this possbility and so to entertain and dismiss beliefs about it. Human beings have all kinds of beliefs, which theynperpetually consider, reject and accept. ******</p>
<p>That is not the same as saying: I actively believe there *is* no alarm clock on Mr Hitchens&#39; desk. - QED<br />
****PH: on the contrary, it now is? Mr Bunker now does actively believe this***</p>
<p>But let me turn to the comment by Michael to which I responded, he wrote; &quot;Atheism is just as much a belief system as deism.&quot; - Nonsense. The deist believes actively in the existence of imagined supernatural persons to whom people pray and who may intervene in human affairs to perform miracles (or other such absurdities). Michael equates that irrational faith with a simple expression of personal opinion. That is his mistake. </p>
<p>The deist &quot;belief&quot; requires a leap of faith, the opinion of the atheist does not. These two senses of the word &quot;belief/believe&quot; are qualitatively different and should not be conflated. Least of all to criticise non-belief, <br />
</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb0928229a970d2016-08-08T18:58:48Z2016-08-08T18:58:48ZJohn AspinallMr Hitchens recommends an essay by a ‘maverick philosopher’ on the meaning of the terms atheism / belief. Is Mr...<p>Mr Hitchens recommends an essay by a ‘maverick philosopher’ on the meaning of the terms atheism / belief.</p>
<p>Is Mr Hitchens having a laugh? </p>
<p>The ‘philosopher’ – Bill Vallicella – describes himself as: </p>
<p>‘A recovering academician, I taught philosophy at various universities in the USA and abroad before abandoning a tenured position to live the eremitic life of the independent philosopher in the Sonoran desert.’</p>
<p>‘Eremitic’?</p>
<p>Other things catch the eye. </p>
<p>One is the ‘recovering’ bit – the, “I’ve seen the error of my ways, and I’m over all that academic nonsense now” bit. (Why does he choose to tell us his position was “tenured”? Whatever the reason, to have won tenure, he must have been *brilliant* at his job.)</p>
<p>(That reminded me of some other examples of an odd attitude. What is this attitude called? Here are two more examples of it: Terry Eagleton (I read) was meant to have regretted not taking “that job” with the Open University, and had to slum-it as Professor of something literary at Oxford. Mr Hitchens’s brother, the late CH, told a crowd at a talk about Orwell that ‘..this university business is over-rated. …if you can write, you don’t need to go..’ I wonder if he thought Balliol was overrated at the time?)</p>
<p>Nowadays Bill Vallicella says his interests are:</p>
<p>‘Everything. Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto. from Terentius. &quot;I am a man: I consider nothing human foreign to me.&quot; Nothing human, but also nothing nonhuman.’</p>
<p>How splendid.</p>
<p>The first sentence of his “essay” isn’t a good start. He says:</p>
<p>‘I&#39;m having a hard time seeing what point there could be in arguing that &quot;atheism only denotes a lack of theistic belief.’</p>
<p>That’s what the word means. That’s the point. His hard time comes from not wanting atheism to mean what it means. Poor bloke.</p>
<p>His second isn’t much better:</p>
<p>‘Note first that atheism cannot be identified with the lack of theistic belief, i.e., the mere absence of the belief that God exists, for that would imply that cabbages and tire irons are atheists.’</p>
<p>Note first he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. (What does he mean *identified with*? Very strange phrase.) The word means what it means: the absence of theism. </p>
<p>His third and fourth are just as awful:</p>
<p>‘Note second that it won&#39;t do to say that atheism is the lack of theistic belief in persons, for there are persons incapable of forming beliefs.’</p>
<p>Are we not meant to notice what just happened there? </p>
<p>‘Charitably interpreted, then, the idea must be that atheism is the lack of theistic belief in persons capable of forming and maintaining beliefs.’</p>
<p>How ‘charitable’ is that despotic ‘must’? Just how honest is this person, with us and himself?</p>
<p>I challenge Mr Hitchens to state that he offered the link to this essay in good and serious faith.</p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c884d289970b2016-08-08T18:49:50Z2016-08-08T18:49:50ZIan Spriggsfrom Mr Hitchens: ‘I cannot see the distinction between 'not believing in x' and 'believing x does not exist'.’ Then...<p>from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not believing in x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;.’</p>
<p>Then I think he’s got his apples and oranges mixed up.</p>
<p>***PH notes: if it&#39;s so obvious, perhaps he can explain it?***</p>David Taylor commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c884cdd6970b2016-08-08T17:58:49Z2016-08-08T17:58:49ZDavid TaylorI cannot do it in equivalent number of words . A belief is just that , is it not ?...<p>I cannot do it in equivalent number of words .<br />
A belief is just that , is it not ? people have a belief that a god called john frum , lives in the crater of a volcano on a pacific island .Channel 4 last night , they will broadcast anything .<br />
I have a belief that I need only speak to Cindy Crawford and she will be mine forever . It is the thought that matters , its all in the mind you know .</p>Mr Bunker commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20e6cd9970c2016-08-08T15:09:55Z2016-08-08T15:09:55ZMr BunkerMr Hitchens is right. There is nothing at all absurd about the proposition: 'The belief that there is no God...<p>Mr Hitchens is right. There is nothing at all absurd about the proposition: &#39;The belief that there is no God is a belief&#39;. But I&#39;d prefer to say it is a mere opinion, not a faith.</p>
<p>The fact remains: Not believing in God is no more a belief than not playing tennis is a sport. I wonder if Mr Hitchens can refute that logic.</p>
<p>***PH: Easily. A sport is a far narrower definition than a &#39;&#39;belief&#39;. It requires active engagement by the person particpiating in it.</p>
<p>Belief, on the other hand, can be passive or acticve, negative or positive, and remain belief. I cannot see the distinction between &#39;not believing in x&#39; and &#39;believing x does not exist&#39;. they are different ways of saying the same thing. And they are both beliefs. </p>
<p>This interesting essay </p>
<p>http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/against-terminological-mischief-negative-atheism-and-negative-nominalism.html</p>
<p>also deals with the silly claim that atheists &#39;lack belief&#39; in God. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br />
</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb0927feb1970d2016-08-08T13:49:18Z2016-08-08T13:49:18ZJohn AspinallMr Hitchens interjects: '***PH asks: if five seconds thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number...<p>Mr Hitchens interjects:</p>
<p>&#39;***PH asks: if five seconds thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number of written words, what is absurd about the proposition &#39;The belief that there is no God is a belief&#39;. Otherwise people might just think you were making an assertion. ***&#39;</p>
<p>I was responding to Mr Bunker, and agreeing with him. Mr Bunker said:</p>
<p>&#39;Oh, by the way, atheism (not believing God exists) is by definition not a belief. Just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby!&#39;</p>
<p>It does indeed take about five seconds&#39; thought to see that the absence of a belief is not a belief. </p>
<p>***PH remarks: it takes about a second to realise this is ga dodge. There is no absence. There is a conscious consideration of the cobceot f belief in God, and a rejection of it. Even supposing the person making this claim has genuinely never considered the origin of the universe and genuinely never considered, even for a second, the theistic explanation of this, at any point in his conscious life before he declares the alleged &#39;absence&#39; of such a belief from his mind, he has now done so. As soon as he has declared this supposed &#39;absence&#39; he has considered and actively rejected it. We may not think much of his willingness to consider it. But he has done so***</p>
<p>Mr Hitchens asks about a different thing.</p>
<p>Mr Hitchens asks about an assertion, Mr Bunker&#39;s comment mentioned the absence of an assertion.<br />
</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20e647a970c2016-08-08T13:49:18Z2016-08-08T13:49:18ZJohn AspinallMr Hitchens interjects: '***PH asks: if five seconds thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number...<p>Mr Hitchens interjects:</p>
<p>&#39;***PH asks: if five seconds thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number of written words, what is absurd about the proposition &#39;The belief that there is no God is a belief&#39;. Otherwise people might just think you were making an assertion. ***&#39;</p>
<p>I was responding to Mr Bunker, and agreeing with him. Mr Bunker said:</p>
<p>&#39;Oh, by the way, atheism (not believing God exists) is by definition not a belief. Just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby!&#39;</p>
<p>It does indeed take about five seconds&#39; thought to see that the absence of a belief is not a belief. </p>
<p>Mr Hitchens asks about a different thing.</p>
<p>Mr Hitchens asks about an assertion, Mr Bunker&#39;s comment mentioned the absence of an assertion.<br />
</p>Ian Spriggs commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b7c884b0b3970b2016-08-08T13:08:33Z2016-08-08T13:08:33ZIan Spriggsfrom Mr Hitchens: ‘If five seconds’ thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number of written...<p><br />
from Mr Hitchens:</p>
<p>‘If five seconds’ thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number of written words, what is absurd about the proposition &#39;The belief that there is no God is a belief&#39;.’</p>
<p>Now let me be clear, I have no case to make either way in this argument, but what Mr Hitchens has written sounds very much like a challenge in linguistics and logic - and I enjoy such challenges!</p>
<p>So here goes:</p>
<p>‘non-belief is not belief’</p>
<p>Depending upon which scrabble rules you observe regarding hyphenation, it could be argued that I sneaked in with only four words, thereby not only fulfilling Mr Hitchens’ challenge, but doing so with one word to spare.</p>
<p>Anyone else fancy a go?</p>
<p>Free chocolate bar for anyone who can do it in three.</p>John Aspinall commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb0927f169970d2016-08-08T10:32:22Z2016-08-08T10:32:22ZJohn AspinallMr Bunker: 'Oh, by the way, atheism (not believing God exists) is by definition not a belief. Just as not...<p>Mr Bunker:</p>
<p>&#39;Oh, by the way, atheism (not believing God exists) is by definition not a belief. Just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby! - (Not very original, I realize, but it does put it rather well, I think.)&#39;</p>
<p>It works for me.</p>
<p>I used to think that the faithful would claim atheism is a belief because they were simply engaging in a sort of linguistic skirmish, and that although the claim was ridiculous, they were aware it was and didn&#39;t care because it suited their case to pretend the two positions are equivalent opposites.</p>
<p>I&#39;m not so sure of that anymore.</p>
<p>It&#39;s repeated so often that I think some of these people – religious, not religious – genuinely think they are saying something sensible when they state that &#39;atheism&#39; is a belief.</p>
<p>As you demonstrate, about five seconds&#39; thought shows this isn&#39;t true, but it keeps on being said, and people say it with a straight face.</p>
<p>***PH asks: if five seconds thought shows it is not true, please demonstrate, in the equivalent number of written words, what is absurd about the proposition &#39;The belief that there is no God is a belief&#39;. Otherwise people might just think you were making an assertion. ***<br />
</p>Ky commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01bb0927cec1970d2016-08-07T23:10:39Z2016-08-08T08:26:03ZKy‘Martin’ writes, “But the fact that the Japanese killer was insane is not under contention, nobody disputes that.” The suspect’s...<p>‘Martin’ writes,</p>
<p>“But the fact that the Japanese killer was insane is not under contention, nobody disputes that.”</p>
<p>The suspect’s insanity has not yet been *declared* by the experts/authority, although that is what many people suspect it might the case. </p>
<p>However, the suspect’s way to the mass killing (the preparations, announced ‘motivation’, cold bloodiness and drug abuse) resembles somewhat Breivik’s, I think.</p>
<p>“The thing that isn&#39;t clear is what caused his insanity, was it mind-altering drugs as you claim, was it religion, …”</p>
<p>I don’t think I have claimed that. What I wrote was that the many rampage killings were done by mind-altering drug abusers, including Uematsu (still the suspect though), as a matter of fact.<br />
</p>Michael commented on 'The Man Who Thought Tony Blair Was His Guardian Angel - yes, really'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01b8d20e2d25970c2016-08-07T22:51:34Z2016-08-08T08:26:03ZMichael'The atheist position is *not* “there is no God” but rather “there is no *reason* to think there is”.' Well...<p>&#39;The atheist position is *not* “there is no God” but rather “there is no *reason* to think there is”.&#39;</p>
<p>Well you seem very keen to ram your lack of belief down everybody else&#39;s throat, whether they are sympathetic to your position or not.</p>
<p>&#39;To claim there is no God is a faith position.</p>
<p>&#39;This is why atheists don’t do it.&#39;</p>
<p>No doubt book titles such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The God Delusion were accidentally provocative, and the authors regretted not taking a more dispassionate tone, going so far as to send back their royalties at the earliest opportunity.</p>
<p>And of course, atheists have no agenda whatsoever in seeking, for example, to ban nativity displays in public spaces at Christmas. Anything suggesting the actual meaning of the festival that gets in the way of mindless consumerism if a bad thing, it has to be admitted.</p>
<p>Given the argument, &#39;there is a god vs there is no god&#39; is doomed to be circular, I cannot understand why people cannot just accept the differences in position.</p>
<p>&#39;Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable&#39;</p>
<p>Given how little we know about the universe and how it came to be, it seems sensible at this stage to admit there is no way of knowing the answer to these greater questions at this stage in history. At the moment many think the universe spontaneously existed after a &#39;big bang,&#39; of undetermined cause. This seems just as awful a theory to me as that offered in Genesis.</p>